ACLU
 

Problem? Do you think the “a preponderance of the evidence” guaranteed in the Constitution should be changed to “clear and convincing evidence”?

The US government uses "clear and convincing evidence" as the standard to meet the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments. For instance, that standard would have to be met before terminating parental rights, among other things. Due process is usually invoked in matters of life, liberty, and property. The question is whether or not an education has enough weight to make raising the bar appropriate.

OTOH, my understanding is that in the UK this intermediate standard isn't used as they hold that neither the seriousness of the allegation nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts.

My opinion is that, these days, an education is important enough for the bar to be raised and the nature of this beast is that many cases will involve people who weren't in complete control of their faculties. Entertaining emotional persuasion to determine likelihood by merely a preponderance of the evidence is insufficient.

Remember when the ACLU would defend the rights of Nazis to march through town? Take the hit for a principle?

Well, it's too far out of fashion now. The times they are a changin' and your deeply-held principles about rights must change too.

Being sort of serious it was easier to defend Nazis before they had a governing majority.

In all seriousness, I don't like seeing this kind of weakness from the ACLU. It's a case of the messenger being much worse than the message and they need to be able to sort that out.

Besides that, I suspect that the open-court system has a good chance of expelling more guilty parties than the behind-closed-doors system ever has. Yes, you have to face your accuser, and that can be traumatizing. But it's what you have to do if you're stabbed with a knife, too.

On the other hand, I think harassing someone who comes forward should be as big of a crime as the crime itself--most universities have a computer network as tightly-watched as any private corporation; if they wanted to know which student in which dormitory was sending death threats to the girl who accused their frat brother of rape, they certainly could find out.

"Problem?"
 

Not for me, no.

Keep in mind defendants are not the only ones who lie.

everyone lies
 

.

That.

Principles are good. They help guides us, by reducing the complexity of the world into something more manageable. We use principles to navigate real-life situations.

If a principle does not adequately account for the particulars a real-life situation, it isn't the duty of reality to contort itself until we're able to return to our comfort zone.


tldr: “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail," but the hammer is a third-grade civics book.

That wouldn't be my definition. I'd go with Oxford:

A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.

I agree, that's what principles are. Man's best attempt at describing a fundamental truth.

Impossible to do, of course, but comforting* when you come up with a really good one.

*and arguably necessary

I just stop replying, when I consider speaking with someone here to have become a kind of melee. If you're saying that's where we are, then please, the thread is yours.